Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Opinion Polls

Opinion Polls Political Opinion Polls - Polls created by the community


View Poll Results: Is a "Free Market" System Sensible?
Yes 9 52.94%
No 6 35.29%
Other 2 11.76%
Voters: 17. You may not vote on this poll

Thanks Tree71Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 30th, 2017, 11:30 AM   #21
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 30,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by xMathFanx View Post
I addressed this in my OP, the "Free Market/quasi-Free Market" as well as the "standard" Social Democratic Market systems in other countries are demonstrably running the ecosystem and humanity off of a Cliff and those in favor of this path argue "so be it--if that is what the people decide".

I do not view this a viable position (Note: I do not view "standard" Social Democratic systems such as the Green Party's platform, various other countries, ect. ect. promote as a viable position either for the same reason--as it does not fundamentally address the problem but rather implements a "Robin Hood" scheme)

Also, I'm not at all suggesting that what I am submitting is the only possible solution, rather it is a potential solution to get out of our current rather dire predicament
But my issue is how do you see your desired system being implemented?
RNG is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 11:54 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 11,914
Pockets of Capitalists are order in disorder but allowed by Thermo. However, eventually the pockets of order fall into disorder. Dems are undereducated to say the least even with advanced college degrees.

Last edited by Twisted Sister; December 30th, 2017 at 11:57 AM.
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 12:03 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
justoneman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 4,246
If Arianna Grande makes 20 million a year its because people buy concert tickets at high prices and that her recordings net big money. She earns this in the market place.

If Tom Brady makes 20 million a year its because he affects the draw on TV and in the stadium. He earns it.


I keep hearing this stuff and then I hear from these same people that they watch football on TV or they own a CD from a specific artist. You are paying these high earnings of these people.

A research scientist knows what the earning potential is before he even went to college. Same with a teacher and same with a factory worker.

This pay envy that goes on with some people is very shallow. Getting into fame on TV or in sports is a lot like winning the lottery. Do you people also want to take away lottery winners money too?
Thanks from Sabcat
justoneman is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 04:28 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
guy39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kekistan
Posts: 4,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by justoneman View Post
Oh I understood it very clearly. He thinks that people earn differnt amounts and disagrees with who deserves what.
No. You was wrong on your quick surmising. He was not applying each according to their need. Try again
Thanks from xMathFanx
guy39 is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 04:31 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
guy39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kekistan
Posts: 4,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by xMathFanx View Post
I addressed this in my OP, the "Free Market/quasi-Free Market" as well as the "standard" Social Democratic Market systems in other countries are demonstrably running the ecosystem and humanity off of a Cliff and those in favor of this path argue "so be it--if that is what the people decide".

I do not view this a viable position (Note: I do not view "standard" Social Democratic systems such as the Green Party's platform, various other countries, ect. ect. promote as a viable position either for the same reason--as it does not fundamentally address the problem but rather implements a "Robin Hood" scheme)

Also, I'm not at all suggesting that what I am submitting is the only possible solution, rather it is a potential solution to get out of our current rather dire predicament
You are not proposing to each according to their need. That is for sure. What you are proposing is akin to it though because you are still proposing that the government decide who gets what proportion by using a criteria that they, being the government pick and choose.
guy39 is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 04:45 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
justoneman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 4,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by guy39 View Post
No. You was wrong on your quick surmising. He was not applying each according to their need. Try again
pretty close to it. He is complaining about who gets paid what because the free market needs to be re worked. Reworked how? Some central government figuring out who merits what pay?

Communism.
justoneman is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 04:50 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
guy39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kekistan
Posts: 4,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by justoneman View Post
pretty close to it. He is complaining about who gets paid what because the free market needs to be re worked. Reworked how? Some central government figuring out who merits what pay?

Communism.
Its not Communism per say. It would require totalitarianism most likely though.
guy39 is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 05:08 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
justoneman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 4,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by guy39 View Post
Its not Communism per say. It would require totalitarianism most likely though.
If you have a government entity deciding pay and thus prices, you have Communism. China has workers getting wages. China has good sold on the open market. China has complete control of who gets paid what and what pricing is. China is exactly what you get when you talk about controlling who gets paid what. It is a slippery slope that would quickly lead to totalitarianism.
justoneman is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 05:08 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
xMathFanx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by guy39 View Post
You are not proposing to each according to their need. That is for sure. What you are proposing is akin to it though because you are still proposing that the government decide who gets what proportion by using a criteria that they, being the government pick and choose.
To address the first half of your post, I am stating:

The work one performs (in relation to it's productive/utility value to society) should be quasi-proportional to what they receive in compensation.


Now, the second half, it is very different than "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". One's work ambition is going to play a tremendous factor in how much they earn, what field they chose to go into, how many hours worked, ect. ect. which is all on the individual (like our current system essentially). There are still going to be "haves and have nots" (by comparison to one another at least), and if you don't work (with nobody else in your personal life supporting you) than you are not going to survive.

As for the point about the government deciding who gets what compensation range/proportion by using a standard criteria (based on the line of work one enters), yes this is the case. I have a lot more to say/explain on this front, which I will do in another post (both the major Pros and Cons of this framework, as I currently see it)
xMathFanx is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 05:09 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
justoneman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 4,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by xMathFanx View Post
To address the first half of your post, I am stating:

The work one performs (in relation to it's productive/utility value to society) should be quasi-proportional to what they receive in compensation.


Now, the second half, it is very different than "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". One's work ambition is going to play a tremendous factor in how much they earn, what field they chose to go into, how many hours worked, ect. ect. which is all on the individual (like our current system essentially). There are still going to be "haves and have nots" (by comparison to one another at least), and if you don't work (with nobody else in your personal life supporting you) than you are not going to survive.

As for the point about the government deciding who gets what compensation range/proportion by using a standard criteria (based on the line of work one enters), yes this is the case. I have a lot more to say/explain on this front, which I will do in another post (both the major Pros and Cons of this framework, as I currently see it)
Bingo!!!

I can smell 'em a mile away.
justoneman is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Opinion Polls

Tags
free market, system



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Free speech" no longer free anymore? Or... Panther Education 125 November 26th, 2017 08:56 AM
German police in Cologne "protect" christmas market with mp5's without magazines Beasty Political Humor 2 December 23rd, 2016 04:22 AM
More Evidence Of Wage Theft In A "Free Market" (snick) Camelot Current Events 4 April 30th, 2014 09:34 AM
Did bill get "I have to do something big" out of Obama's system? leighredf Healthcare 56 March 23rd, 2010 07:51 PM
"I wouldn't call that a broken system." aMFliberal Crime and Punishment 24 February 12th, 2006 07:06 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.